I am not sure why people take issue with this. Granted, he did not further the conversation in any meaningful way, it seems he just posted to brag about how he can kill the table on turn 0 1000% percent of the time, but isn't it preferable that he tagged it to this conversation rather than starting 3 new threads about it where someone would have to post a link to this one?

I mean, I like playing competitively too. I just invested in Power and once I get some more discretionary funds I will have a t1 deck to be proud of. I play EDH for different reasons. If I am shuffling up 99 cards I want the game to last longer than the 7th turn. If you want to play something else that does not make you a bad person, you just have to realize that you are in the minority and should bring a different deck that is more compatable with the majority of players. Or you know just go play by yourself and goldfish that t1 win... no reason to have people waiting on you when you are not interacting with them in the slightest.

_________________

Shabbaman wrote:

The usual answer is "the social contract", but I guess that is not what you are looking for. Try house rules.

With perfect mana, reasonable removal, disruption, and card advantage, we're back to pitchforks and torches. And it's about to get worse for those who do not enjoy the game as Richard Garfield intended, playing as few win conditions as possible and prompting concession after all hopes (and spells) are lost. - Shaheen Soorani

I don't mind the thread reanimation either since it was an on-topic response.

I read the OP, and a lot of it resembles some stuff that drove me out of playing EDH in my FLGS in late 2017. (And out of playing the format entirely since that was the only place I knew about to play it at the time.) I've taken 2018 off from the format to process things and want to get back into it, and know some other options beyond that FLGS, but between time and energy and travel I'm not sure how soon that will be. Certainly EDH has some issues in working as well in FLGSs as it could in a closed friendly group, as people in many walks collide and don't have the same social space to negotiate expectations and understandings as long-term contact allows. In fact the closed friendly group that branched off of the FLGS group for a while and met at someone's home were some of the best sessions I had.

SamsWrath wrote:

In my opinion, every player should strive to build the very best possible deck that he/she can build. There's nothing wrong with competitive play. [...] Fun is subjective. You should do your best to find what YOU consider to be fun. Don't hate on others simply because you disagree with their version of fun. Live and let live!

I agree. I want to expand on what Shabbaman said as well though: we are indeed already doing that. “Best possible deck” requires evaluation against a subjective set of goals, and for me those goals necessarily mean the best possible deck I can make is one that can only win after many turns, and would not win more than half the time. For some people their goals are winning early and as often as possible, so their best possible deck is one that can win turns 1-3, but that is not among my goals and runs contrary to them, so that would not be my best possible deck. I think you may already be saying and acknowledging this (you also acknowledge “each to their own”) but I felt like writing this anyway.

Fun is subjective. You should do your best to find what YOU consider to be fun. Don't hate on others simply because you disagree with their version of fun. Live and let live!

This is true, though it's somewhat ironic to say "don't hate on others" right after referring to people who DON'T want the game to be shorter than the time it takes to shuffle up "the kiddie table" and use the term "the casuals" in an implied deragatory way.

_________________"The President's job - and if someone sufficiently vain and stupid is picked he won't realize this - is not to wield power, but to draw attention away from it." -- Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide tot he Galaxy Radio Transcripts predicting the future.

The goal of the game is to win, the best possible deck would be built to win as consistently as possible and as fast as possible. Deliberately playing a deck that isn't designed to do so but instead with the foremost intention to have fun and not win too hard isn't "playing *my* best deck". There is, of course, nothing wrong with playing in suboptimal ways to accomplish what one thinks is fun. I don't play any reanimate spells under 3 mana (starts at Corpse Dance which i'm on and off of because it's so strong and generally causes the best play to be "resummon the ebst creature over and over again", and generally only cast it for 5 anyway) in a reanimator deck and most are basically at 6, and it's tons of fun.

The goal of the game is to win, the best possible deck would be built to win as consistently as possible and as fast as possible. Deliberately playing a deck that isn't designed to do so but instead with the foremost intention to have fun and not win too hard isn't "playing *my* best deck". There is, of course, nothing wrong with playing in suboptimal ways to accomplish what one thinks is fun. I don't play any reanimate spells under 3 mana (starts at Corpse Dance which i'm on and off of because it's so strong and generally causes the best play to be "resummon the ebst creature over and over again", and generally only cast it for 5 anyway) in a reanimator deck and most are basically at 6, and it's tons of fun.

I'm coming from this a bit differently in saying my winningest deck isn't my best deck. That might be the goal of Magic: the Gathering by default, but I'm not certain it's EDH's goal, and it's definitely not my goal, which is to be able to play a while with friends and have fun. At that point the measure of “best” shifts from winning consistently and early to being something that consistently lets me play a while with friends and have fun. A deck that can combo turn 1 and win is very much not the best possible deck I can make for that goal, and instead one of the best ways to make sure I'm not playing a while with friends and having fun (because they're not). Instead the best deck (for me) is one that plays around with mechanical themes I enjoy with interactions I enjoy and that has sufficient power and chance of winning to help me have fun (and not necessarily any more power than that). That means “playing in [suboptimal at winning] ways to accomplish what one thinks is fun” is not suboptimal after all by this measure. Best is subjective based on where you set the goalpost, right?

The goal of the game is to win, the best possible deck would be built to win as consistently as possible and as fast as possible. Deliberately playing a deck that isn't designed to do so but instead with the foremost intention to have fun and not win too hard isn't "playing *my* best deck".

You might as well say the point of having a footy kickabout with some mates is to win - and casual EDH is roughly the equivalent of soccer for no stakes. Is 'winning' really so important to you?Personally I'm only unhappy when I'm not allowed to do stuff in the game: stax is my nightmare scenario.

That means “playing in [suboptimal at winning] ways to accomplish what one thinks is fun” is not suboptimal after all by this measure. Best is subjective based on where you set the goalpost, right?

No, i don't think so. We can't specifically measure which deck is objectively the best, but we can certainly recognize and admit when we are specifically playing something that is objectively not the best (whether through intention or not).

Playing the best deck would mean by default the most capable of winning.

Adding caveats and personal restrictions for fun also adds caveats to a phrase like "the best deck". It seems now you would mean "the best deck for having fun with my friends in the kind of games we like to play". It's pedantic, i know.

I am just pointing out i just find it more honest for a person to say don't play the best deck, because if you like slow casual janky battlecruiser themed games you would specifically choose not to play the best deck possible.

OldVig wrote:

You might as well say the point of having a footy kickabout with some mates is to win - and casual EDH is roughly the equivalent of soccer for no stakes. Is 'winning' really so important to you?

Not really. I don't know where you got that idea from; i play bad decks all the time and tried to say as much in my previous response. Maybe i could frame myself better and add some line breaks that make it more readily digestible.

I'm not saying you can't prioritize having fun while playing as a goal over the actual game-rules goal of winning. I would agree a for fun commander game is not any different than soccer for no stakes.

The bottom line is the rules of commander are to win. You can do other things than win, but by doing so you are automatically choosing not to play the best deck.

----------------

In other news; i do 100% agree with the general tone to do what makes you happy and find others who feel the same. I have a Saskia deck full of old hp/damaged cards completely unsleeved and riffle shuffled every game. Really takes me back to the 90's and stuff like the 5-color and Tower of old. I also play shared deck with it Once i finish it (i am short a couple lands; a scalding tarn and a few ons fetches if anyone has some hp/dmg copies of those ) i'm going to let people sign or give a minor alter to the top card of my deck if they kill me in the game.

I did as much old borders as i can and i really wanted to be able to do 100% pre-8th borders but i don't know if i have the constitution. There are some really cool combat cards that only come in crappy new frames.

Inkeyes22 wrote:

I just invested in Power and once I get some more discretionary funds I will have a t1 deck to be proud of.

I could have built Izoni better I guess, but it seems if I had removed the Bayou and just added something else there I would have had a better chance, rather than trying to fight off all the dragons by myself. Building the objectively best deck means the difference between an original dual and a guildgate is worth it, but in reality you do draw heat when you play a card with more than someone else's whole deck. I mean I have had people Murder the target for Riding the Dilu Horse and still target me because... envy?

_________________

Shabbaman wrote:

The usual answer is "the social contract", but I guess that is not what you are looking for. Try house rules.

With perfect mana, reasonable removal, disruption, and card advantage, we're back to pitchforks and torches. And it's about to get worse for those who do not enjoy the game as Richard Garfield intended, playing as few win conditions as possible and prompting concession after all hopes (and spells) are lost. - Shaheen Soorani

Building the objectively best deck means the difference between an original dual and a guildgate is worth it, but in reality you do draw heat when you play a card with more than someone else's whole deck.

This reminds me of something i could clarify on my opinion on what a best deck means; the best decklist in theorycrafting might not be the best deck in practice due to multiplayer nature.